Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> 484, quoting Lancaster v. Municipal Court (1972) 6 Cal.3d 805, <br /> 807 -808; accord, Sherman Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles <br /> (1993) 4 Ca1.4 893, 897.)" <br /> Morehart v County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4' 725, 747. <br /> Here Measure GG, with the passage of time and the promulgation of a <br /> RHNA obligation that is contradicted by the provisions of Measured GO, has <br /> become pre empted by the Housing Element Law, rendering it void. (See also <br /> Building Industry Association of San Diego v. City of Oceanside (1994) 27 <br /> Cal.App.4 744). <br /> THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM <br /> At the eleventh hour, the city has avoided the invalidation of' its annual <br /> limitation on new housing units, which conflicts with the RHNA, by promulgating <br /> an exception to the program. The change cures the facial invalidity of the program <br /> and there is no as- applied challenge presented here. <br /> COMPLIANCE WITH THE 1999 -2007 RHNA OBLIGATION <br /> The City is in clear violation of the Housing Element Law, the Least Cost <br /> Zoning Law, and its obligations to complete its 2003 Housing Element program <br /> designed to satisfy its RHNA for the 1999 -2007 planning period. <br /> 2 This lawsuit is about the City's obligation to plan and to accommodate its <br /> RIINA in its plans. It matters not that the City planners have a belief that the <br /> State's RHNA requirements are unlikely to be satisfied because of the current <br /> economic climate. First and foremost, the City does not have the discretion to <br /> ignore the specific mandates of State law and second, the City planners' current <br /> beliefs are subject to change based on economic events beyond the control of <br /> either the City or the State. <br /> 7 <br />